802.11a is over 20 years old, fortunately this law isn't talking about shutting down existing routers. the 6 GHZ is the next frontier to expand to, the military already owns the 7 GHZ spectrum... So the 6 GHZ is the one that can be expanded into. Of which origionally was planned to be made for the next generation of wifi... but now is going to be sold off to phone providers to use in the next generation of mobile networks.

So in short, our existing routers will continue to work as designed, but future routers will not be making any leaps forward.

Basically the choice between better faster wireless LANs, is getting killed in favor of better networks for cellphone services... of which the carriers will set the price on.

Yup, the band is already littered with 6g devices. It'd be a stupid purchase.

But also, 6GHz is somewhat of a useless band for carriers. It's high enough frequency that it'll get absorbed by most things yet low enough frequency that it'll struggle to really carry a whole lot of data.

So if I'm reading this right... wired Internet providers are against this due to home Wi-Fi Internet speeds and phone providers are for this for mobile speeds/bandwidth?

I don't know how I feel about this as I currently have T-Mobile home Internet and it's not the best experience... but it mostly works and it's cheaper than my previous cable provider. However, home Wi-Fi really needs 6 GHz for future IoT devices.

But I am definitely against it because Ted Cruz is for it. He obviously is getting paid/bribed by the telecoms... and he sucks.

Eh, IoT devices typically use 2.4ghz, or even 933mhz...

Yeah IoT devices don't need bandwith, they need range (at low powers) and those lower frequencies get them that. 6ghz wifi has pretty small range and is awful for IoT stuff.

It's a bad band for cellular. It's short-range and shit at penetration.

It's really not even that good for wifi unless you're close or have a mesh network with APs all over the building.

I kinda meant for like future products when AR and VR combine with IoT products, but if those can work on lower ranges with those 6 Ghz devices, then great... but VR and AR will definitely need 6 GHz to be more useful.

mesh network

Or traditional network with Ethernet backhaul and lots of access points. I really wish mesh networks would die off honestly.

Next they are gonna take away amateur radio frequencies so it would be illegal to communicate outside of the internet.

Then its very easy to do censorship, just turn off power to ISPs and its information blackout.

Like anything else, they have their place. But they've been shoved into use cases they dont fit as well.

6GHz compatible devices are already being sold. If your phone is new-ish it likely supports it, and many routers already have it.

This isn’t a “next gen” problem, it’s a “current gen bleeding edge” problem.

The cell carriers don't need more bandwith. 5G is already quite fast with the existing allocations. The only times I've used 5G and thought it's too slow has been in rural areas where the issue is a lack of nearby cell towers, not a lack of bandwidth. The cell carriers already have loads of millimeter wave bandwidth available for use in densely packed, urban areas where the lower frequency bands are insufficient.

It's WiFi that should be getting more bandwidth. Home internet connections keep getting faster. Multi gigabit speeds are now common in areas with fiber.

WiFi is on all three bands. It's not so much what's newer vs older. Newer devices tend to support 2.4, 5, and 6 and switch between them based on quality of signal and support by the WiFi network. Higher frequencies like 5 and 6GHz are generally better because there's less interference.

Cheaper devices tend to only support 2.4GHz

Because of its shortcomings as a communication bandwidth, it's really, really good at cell-based positioning.

Sometimes re-wiring a house or building isn't as practical as setting up a mesh network that's good-enough.

This exactly. Wifi is damn near unusable in dense residential settings. It'll cut it for streaming and web browsing, but much more than that and you'll feel the pain of interference from all the other wifi APs in the area.

Especially with most of them defaulting to 80MHz on 5GHz and many of those defaulting away from UNII-2. which leaves 4 non-overlapping channels (with one of them giving trouble with a lot of devices). We're right back to where we were in 2.4. Even worse, I think, since wifi is more ubiquitous.

Mesh should be an option of last resort. It reduces the speed and increases the latency quite a bit. The only thing worse is power line networking, which has the side effect of turning your whole house into an RF jammer.

Rat Bastard Rafael Cruz

I mean, does anyone actually communicate on the ham bands? HF is for contesting and contesting only, 2 meters is for "checking in and out" on ragchew nets, 70cm is 2m again except half the range, 220 is hipster 2 meter, and I've never been given a reason to even think about 33cm and above. You're more likely to find discussion about Icom vs Yaesu's incompatible 2 meter digital things than high UHF.

Most actual communication is illegal on the ham bands one way or another so...I haven't renewed my license.